Shalom

[Dan Ben Noah]

Shalom

[muman613]

It would be wrong to only believe what Rambam wrote. He was just one sage among many great Jewish commentators on the Torah. I just cant believe that there are people who only believe things if Rambam wrote it.

[muman613]

There is no actual group out there that only believes what Rambam wrote.  This rabbi is over-generalizing about people who adhere to the Mishneh Torah for practical halacha.  This would be like stigmatizing people who adhere to the Shulchan Aruch as a group called "Karoists" who are on par with Karaites.

Oh... I didn't read the entire piece you linked to. You know what I think about Rabbi Ba-Chayim and I will not repeat it.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

On Rambamism: A Word to the Wise
 
by Yair HaKohen
 


In order to better comprehend why some choose to follow the piskei halacha of Rambam to the exclusion of all other Rishonim (Torah scholars who lived during the period from approximately 1000-1500 according to the Christian calendar), it is necessary to grasp the psychological appeal of their approach.
 
It’s all about authenticity. It is not uncommon to hear well-intentioned Jews express the conviction that ‘standard Judaism’ is not the real McCoy, that it is somehow watered down, that centuries upon centuries of halachic decision making has led us away from the original intent of Hazal. Due to Rambam’s terse style and all-encompassing vision of the Tora as a system of instruction for both the Jewish nation as well as the Jewish individual, it is assumed that by returning to the halachic rulings of Rambam one is living a truer, more pristine version of Judaism.
 
This perception is essentially correct. HaRav David Bar-Hayim’s teachings are also rooted in this awareness. Rav Bar-Hayim points out, quoting Hazal (TB Haghigha 5b and TB Sanhedrin 24a), that it is the Galuth (Exile) itself which inevitably brought about this degeneration of Torah, and that today the process can and must be reversed.
 
The Rambamist approach, is therefore, at root, a positive phenomenon, in as much as it is motivated by a search for Emeth (Truth). Yes, it is true: the fact that a practice is widespread among Torah observant Jews is not in and of itself a reason to continue to do so, particularly when said practice contradicts the Torah (based on a Hacham’s clear understanding of the primary sources, viz. Mishna, Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.). How could one take issue with an ideology which strives to serve HASHEM in the most authentic and correct manner possible?
 
However, as is frequently the case with those looking for a quick fix, Rambamists tend to oversimplify, often adopting extreme and unreasonable positions. We all recognise that regarding many issues in life, careful analysis is required before attempting to suggest a way forward. If this is true of more mundane matters, how much more so is this the case in the realm of Torah.
 
While the Mishne Torah is probably the best choice for the layman seeking a basic handbook, this is not the way of the Hacham. A Hacham must engage in in-depth study and analysis of the primary sources. Rambam himself stresses (Introduction to Mishne Torah, 24) that only opinions based on such study and analysis can be considered binding and authoritative. To refuse to consider other positions, despite well-reasoned and cogent argument, is not only irrational – it is indicative of an obsession, an obsession which belies Rambam’s express position regarding how Halacha is to be determined. Furthermore, it flies in the face of his fundamental belief in and love of Truth. This very point was emphasized by Rambam’s son, R. Avraham, regarding a point of Halacha on which he disagreed with his father: “This understanding is correct and unassailable….and had my father of blessed memory been made aware of it, he would have accepted it, as he himself often told us ‘Be always ready to accept the truth’. And on numerous occasions we observed how he would adopt the view of even the smallest of his students when the truth was made apparent to him…” (HaMaspiq l’Ov’dhe Hashem, p. 71).

Rambamists would do well to heed the message of HaRav Bar-Hayim. Our generation is in dire need of a well-reasoned Eretz Yisrael-based Halachic system in step with Tradition and reality, as well as the immense and historical task of reconstituting the Jewish nation and providing it with clarity of purpose and direction.
 
The fact that such an approach can only be based on the collective wisdom of all of Hachme Yisrael of all generations need hardly be stressed even for the layman, let alone for the scholar.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-audio-shiurim/41-audiohalakha/408-do-not-follow-only-the-rambam

Do Not Follow Only the Rambam

“Rambamists” follow only the Rambam. Hear the drawbacks of this approach. It is reminiscent of Karatism.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Anyway the Rambam, as great as he was made mistakes as well. He was human, in fact today I was dealing with a case of the Rambam contradicting himself in some major point of Torah though.

[muman613]

I read all that and listened to the audios before.  But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he?  Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.

Halacha can change... This is why Halacha is the living Torah and sages of the day can argue pro or con to support their view. Obviously Halacha cannot contradict the simple meaning of the Torah but within a framework of ideas the Halacha can change... It is not carved in stone.

http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/Levi.pdf

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/decide.html

III. Limited Role of Charisma/Inspiration

Halachic decision-making is not a matter of a Rabbi secluding himself in a room and getting a direct answer from G-d which he then communicates with ex cathedra authority. Indeed, based on the verse, "It [the Torah] is not in Heaven", the Talmud declares that prophecy and Divine inspiration cannot be taken into account in the resolution of halachic questions. All halachic resolution depends on a solid empirical grounding in the facts coupled with a reasoned application from the primary texts that Jewish law considers to be definitive, e.g. Talmud, Codes. Ad hoc decision-making that is not rooted in these texts is generally illegitimate.

.
.
.

VI. Halachic Reasoning: Combination of Inductive and Deductive Logic

Halachic reasoning, in common with all reasoning by analogy, involves a combination of inductive and deductive logic. First, relevant primary data - rulings in particular cases extracted from Talmud and Codes - have to be identified and collected. Second, through inductive reasoning, a hypothesis is formulated that explains the specific collection of rulings by reference to a more general principle. Third, through deductive reasoning, this principle can be utilized to apply to new situations that are not explicitly covered by the earlier rulings but can now be subsumed under the principle that is believed to explain those earlier rulings. Uncertainty, ambiguity, and disagreement among halachic scholars can arise at any stage of this three-stage process.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I read all that and listened to the audios before.  But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he?  Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.

 Almost no one does Hasiba today. It's a fact. All the people who think they are doing what they call "Hasiba" is not it at all. What do most do today? lean over (totally uncomfortably) and eat their Massa or drink the cups of wine and then go back to normal sitting out of relief.
 Some (and these are few) actually do Hasiba correctly, but go again't the purpose of Hasiba to begin with. The reason for making Hasiba as stated in Chazal was for Jews on the night of the Seder to behave like freed men and children of THE King (HKBH). Soo the way of eating like royalty during that time was to do what is called Hasiba.
 It is not changing Halacha like the conservative. The opposite, it is keeping Halacha and knowing reality and applying that custom (custom or statement of the Hachamim at that time) to today's reality and telling people to yes continue on this night of Pessah to eat like important noble men. And how do important people eat today? They do not eat reclining.
 What about possibly changing the Halacha? Its not changing the Halacha at all. It is applying it properly today. Also it is not a Misswa Min Ha Torah but it is from the Rabbanim with the reason provided for, therefore with their reasoning known we apply their reasoning to how to eat on that night to how to eat this coming Pessah night as well. (Obviously only Talmidei Hachamim would and do tackle these issues and when this logic applies and when not, another example in Shaving during Hol Hamoed, which not only Rav Bar-Haim allows (when done correctly) but other Hachamim including Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL, Rav Soloveichic and others as well)

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

  You could use the same reasoning to say that we have advanced methods of telling time and fast communication now so we only need to observe Rosh HaShana and other holidays for only one day outside of Eretz Yisrael instead of two, because the original purpose for making two days is irrelevant now.  Does Rabbi Bar Hayim allow this?  I respect him, and these types of arguments would be good to submit on a resurrected Sanhedrin, but as far as practical halacha is concerned, I don't think he has anything better to offer than the Mishneh Torah.

 I did think about that before and I did ask him this specific question and the answer is no, one must keep 2 days of Yom Tov outside of Israel. And yes, most likly when the Sanhedrin will be made again they would probably lift that decree (besides other reasons applying as well. For example- that in the Galut it takes 2ce as much then as in Israel to accomplish spiritually).
 BUT their is 1 major difference between these examples. The 2 day Yom Tov was made by the Sanhedrin and Beit Din that did have power to rule (I beleive in the time of Hillel who had Smicha) the Hasiba or shaving for example was not with the reasons provided as well. That is the difference.
  Also another example is killing lice on Shabbath. The opinion of R' Elizer is that killing lice is like killing a camel. The Hachamim disagree, BASED on the science and knowledge of their day that lice spontaniously generate. Therefore the Rav says that killing lice os forbidden on Shabbath (in agreement with R' Elizer + our knowledge over the other Hachamim) while some (for example R' Ovadia Yosef, and others) permit it today- their reasoning- just like yours, that is was made by the Hachamim and brought down in the Talmudh therefore it is allowed, although one can make a Humra and not do it him/her self. BUT this contradicts the Mesehet Horayot which specifically deals with situations where the Sanhedrin made a mistake and one knowledgeable NOT following it and if he did he is liable to bring a korban. (Its a whole discussion both Bavli and Yerushalmi)

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

See this response from Rav Bar-Hayim, read carefully (not on website, I put in  _______, although probably not necessary and no it wasn't R' Ovadia Yosef, but someone else).

Spontaneous generation does not and never did exist. According to Wikipedia: "The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory." Therefore, any Halakhic opinion based on this false belief is rooted in error, an error which has nothing to do with the Tora. Halakha should be based on reality and reason, not fallacies. I am aware that someone like R. _________ may make an argument based on Halakhic stability, etc. I feel that this position cannot and will not stand up to criticism. Furthermore, it paints the Tora as something anachronistic and frozen, unable to deal with changing realities. This is a very serious matter indeed. I am aware that some people cannot conceive of any of the Hakhamim being mistaken about anything. This is a naive, if quaint, notion, rooted in a very particular type of philosophical outlook (hashqapha) which today is mainstream in the Haredi world an not uncommon in other parts of the Orthodox world.. It is not a Tora-based point of view; see Wayiqra 4:13 and Masekheth Horayoth.
The claim that spontaneous generation did indeed exist once upon a time but ceased to exist at some point is childish and untenable, and reflects poorly on those who express such a view. Even if this ludicrous suggestion were true, it would not justify killing a louse on Shabath today. 
Some of Hazal believed in spontaneous generation. Based on this belief, and the assumption that only life created by univocal generation is considered to be truly alive, those Hakhamim ruled that killing a louse was mutar. We find, however, that other Hakhamim ruled that killing a louse on Shabath is "no different from killing a camel". R. Eliezer is recorded by the TB (Shabath 12a, 107b) as being of this view, as is Hizqiya by the TY (Shabath 1:3). Clearly they either did not believe this concept to be true, or, alternately, they felt that true or not, if something is plainly alive it may not be killed on Shabath. 
The TB is no more binding than the TY, and vice versa. All of the Tora SheBa'al Pe has to be learned, analysed and understood correctly, as Rambam mentions in his introduction to MT. This requires many, many years of specialised study and training. That which appears to a true Hakham capable of the above to be the truth of the matter at hand is the Halakha. This does not preclude the possibility that two great Hakhamim will differ. The search for understanding and truth continues with their disciples, students and followers. This has always been darka shel Tora, the way of Tora study and practice.
Kol Tuv
DHY

[muman613]

I believe Rambam was one who believed in Spontaneous Generation...

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/766411/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/When_Science_Contradicts_The_Talmud

http://www.kashrut.com/articles/WormsInFish/

Coming From the Flesh – Spontaneous Generation46

For years, scientists believed in spontaneous generation, which means that a female and male are not needed to reproduce, and creatures can grow from dirt and rot.47 Louis Pasteur finally disproved this theory in the late nineteenth century. The simple reading of the Gemarah that worms grow in the flesh of the fish would seem to indicate that Chazal held of spontaneous generation.48

However, there is an alternative way to explain the Gemarah.

We find a similar issue concerning lice.

The halacha is that lice may be killed on Shabbos,49 since they are not created from the mating of a male and female.50 Many explain that lice are spontaneously generated. This was the accepted theory for many years.

However, many explain the Gemarah that the reason why lice may be killed is they are so small and unrecognizable (unless they are on a shaft of black hair). Therefore, they are considered as nothing (see below), and viewed as a product of dirt. However, there is no proof from here that there is such as notion as spontaneous generation.51

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I believe Rambam was one who believed in Spontaneous Generation...

  Not only the Rambam but  "For years, scientists believed in spontaneous generation,"
    Soo Rambam used the information and scientific and in general knowledge of his day to make his decision on this matter (I presume permitting killing lice of Shabbat), we who know better should not do soo and use the opinion of R' Elizer who forbade such action on Shabbat.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

That doesn't sound like a very convincing reason for those who do recline on Pesach to stop doing so.  It seems to me to still be an agreeable tradition used to commemorate Pesach.

 The shiur from what I remember was primarily addressed to those who think they are doing Haseba (the vast majority actually, except for a few Teimanim who actually do it), most in actuality are not. Then also addressing actually the correct way, of why we would not be obligated to do that as well. To move all our chairs and furniture and sit on the floor and do this. I don't remember exactly, but I don't remember the Rav specifically saying it is absolutly wrong. Just that it is absolutly not necessary and not the way of noble people today to eat this way. I don't understand why you and the writer of that site was soo offended by what the Rav said. This was actually said by a number of Torah leaders already in the past generations especially in Europe where people did not eat this way.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

The chayas site was saying that this practice of reclining is not wrong, I would agree with that. 

Also, regarding the killing of a louse on the Sabbath, here is what Rambam says:
A person who kills insects and worms that are conceived through male-female relations or fleas that come into being from the dust is liable as if he killed an animal or a beast. In contrast, a person is not liable for killing insects and worms that come into being from dung, rotten fruit, or the like - e.g., the worms found in meat or those found in legumes.
A person who checks his clothes for lice on the Sabbath may rub off the lice and discard them. It is is permitted to kill lice on the Sabbath, for they come into being from sweat.

Now the way I would interpret this is that since nothing comes into being from dung, rotten fruit, etc., then it is forbidden to kill anything (unless it is a dangerous animal with direct threat to one's life as is later discussed).  Now if lice DID come from spontaneous generation, then it would be ok, but since they don't then they fall into the category of any other insect.  You don't need a whole new psak halacha for a person to do this.  I wouldn't compare this to hasiba which is a cultural issue.

Also, does Rabbi Bar Hayim actually have his own code that he has put together or does he just issue rulings on a limited number of issues?

 It was addressing a shiur that the Rav made about Haseba and recling on Pessah. Its a whole shiur, they took a small part of the shiur and took it personally. What was explicitly stated as wrong was/is the practice of leaning to the right side thinking one is doing Hasebba which in actually one is not. And about actually doing Haseba the outcome was that one needs not do it.

 - Lice. Yes. Its needed to explicilty say that its forbidden to do soo on Shabbat since their are some (and more then a handful I heard) who say you are allowed. And i'm almost sure some Rambamists and/or anyone who just reads and only relys on what is written in one work etc. would and can say soo as well. For example they wouldcopy/paste the Rambam and say ". It is is permitted to kill lice on the Sabbath" .

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I respect the rationalism of Rabbi Bar Hayim, but apparently he is only re-inventing the wheel as far as practical halacha is concerned, and has some misconceptions about Mishneh Torah adherents.

http://www.chayas.com/slander.htm

Incorrect.  He studeied with them and learned by their great Rav, Rabbi Qafeh zt"l.

What the "rambamists" (and apparently you) don't understand is that being an "adherent" of any one particular scholar and following his opinion blindly on every single issue is just as mistaken whether that scholar is Rambam or it is Rav Yosef Karo.   The greatest poskim of yesteryear and currently living today simply never made "devotion" or "reliance" part of the halachic decision making.

For example, consider the Chazon Ish.  He considered the mishne brura as just another source, no special weight.  But you will see many inferior scholars today who "rely" on mishna brura and pasken straight out of that no matter what.  (And even some not very good scholars or just plain ignorant nonrabbis will say things like "we hold by mishna brura" or " we -ashkenazim - pasken according to mishna brura").  Great poskim get away from this.  If you ask me personally I certainly respect Rambamists more than a shulchan aruchist, but either way, neither of them should try to hold rabbinic scholars hostage to their historical scholar of choice.

Btw you say Rav Bar Hayim is wrong about the Rambamists, but you neglect the fact that he is not the only one who knows of them or considers them in that light.  There are many who have the same view in this matter.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Rabbi Bar Hayim's audio was made in response to people who claimed he was a "Rambamist".  He agrees with Rambam in most cases.  But he over-generalized about what a "Rambamist" is, talking about a "group" that doesn't exist.  Maybe individuals exist who only believe anything that Rambam wrote but they are not your average Mishneh Torah adherents.  That would be like associating all Kahanists with people who plotted to blow up a girls' school.  The chayas site had a problem with him saying this hasiba practice was antiquated and that people were stubborn and obstinate who still did it.  There are a lot of technically antiquated practices that are still practiced though, like the 2-day holidays.

Also, this lice issue did not begin with Rambam but the Gemara.  So some apparently still permit killing lice on Shabbat for other reasons, and this is not just Mishneh Torah adherents, but other people such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe who said that it's possible that spontaneous generation exists even if we can't observe it and the halacha shouldn't be changed.  I don't believe that spontaneous generation exists, but I think that the proper thing for a rabbi to do would not be to change the halacha itself, but tell people not to kill anything on the Sabbath unless it poses a threat to your life, because nothing exists that meets the spontaneous generation criteria in the Mishneh Torah.  So I would agree with the Lubavitcher Rebbe's method, but reach Rabbi Bar Hayim's conclusion--don't change the halacha but don't kill lice on Shabbat.

 The Haseba and the Rambamist audio lectures are 2 different topics and different lectures.
  No he didn't over generalize. A Rambamist is someone who only follows the Rambam (or thinks he is following the Rambam) with the exclusion of all else without taking into the insights and opinions of others.
  Anyway did you yourself listen to his Haseba lecture?
 Spontanious generation doesn't exist. What you said about the Lubavitcher R' opinion and your conclusion are 2 opposites. Either it exists or does not. Either its allowed or not. Their are those who allow it. Other's do not.
 About "changing" its not technically changing its applying it correctly which only someone with great years ,experience and knowledge can do. Not the average person. And it would be people with the mindset that would be able to form the proper Sanhedrin as well. NOT those who just open the Mishna Torah, or Shulhan Aruch, Ben Ish Chai or Mishna Brura and just read without the proper overall knowledge, background, experience, secular, wordly and Torah knowledge. It would be okay for a regual person though to accept any one of these systems as their "Rav" soo to speak.
 

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Dan you want one perversion of this type of thinking- and this is with those who only rely on the Shulahan Aruch. For example- "Land for Peace". It doesn't mention fighting for the land of Israel in the Shulhan Aruch, but it does in saving one's life, soo therefore automatically if their is a situation of either fighting for the land or risking a life, we go with "Land for Peace". Do you not see a problem with that reasoning?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Upon reading this now (just beginning so far), I can already see the response suffers from a "no true scotsman" fallacy.  Rav Bar Hayim studied with these people for years.  They were indeed serious scholars.  And I have encountered some rambamists on facebook myself.  They do exist and they shocked me w the things they said.  One guy for instance slandered Rav Yakov Kamenetsky zt"l because he "dared" point out that some of Rambam's views on astronomy were subsequently proven wrong in modern times and therefore needn't be followed.

And something more well known.  There is a more "scholarly" type Rambamist who wrote up a pamphlet saying the moon landing must have been staged because rambam said the moon is a sentient being.  (Rav Yakov had asserted that the moon landing among other things proves that view false). This person wrote up a pamphlet attacking this point of view on the grounds that we must assume Rambam was correct.  Btw , its an aristotelian view of the cosmos that the sun planets etc are sentient beings.  Wonder if the author of that pamphlet even knows that.

  I think the writer you cite is either in denial or not well aware of his compatriots

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This would be like stigmatizing people who adhere to the Shulchan Aruch as a group called "Karoists"

But there are people like that!  And they don't make any sense either.  And when people insist one "has to follow shulchan aruch" they equally err.  Of course one cannot go wrong following a psak of rambam or shulchan aruch, but to say that a rabbinic scholar can only just blindly follow one of them is just not true and puts unecessary limits on halacha.

who are on par with Karaites.

Well you added this part, but maybe it is worth consideration.  A halachic code doesn't replace the Oral Torah which is governed by Talmud.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Here is another "Rambamist". This is also a form of Fundamentalism, similar to the NK. The NK made a whole ideology from something they interpreted (from a small line in Ketuvim) and made a whole ideology out of it. Ignoring virtually everything else on the issue. In fact even stepping on the Torah, Jews and Judaism from that twisted fundamentalist world view.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Oh... I didn't read the entire piece you linked to. You know what I think about Rabbi Ba-Chayim and I will not repeat it.

Lol what kind of comment is this?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Lol what kind of comment is this?

 He is saying he wants to attack Rav Bar-Haim to get back at him apparently for being offended by something he said, but doesn't know what to say yett soo...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I read all that and listened to the audios before.  But I still think that there is no purer halachic code out of the ones available today than the Mishneh Torah, and Rabbi Bar Hayim hasn't brought one into existence, has he?  Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.

No matter how "pure" or relatively pure a given code is, a posek is not obligated to follow some "code" !  Read the Rambam's own words about how we arrive at psak halacha for example.  Because he describes this process.  The posek has to consider all the sources and is bound to the talmud bavli, yerushalmi, sifre sifra, mechilta etc to arrive at a decision.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Also the way he was talking about "hasiba" reminded me of the way Conservative Jews think about changing halacha.

WHAT?!  There is no connection to conservative judaism.  It is slander to associate someone with that fraud without basis.  I really have no clue what you're talking about.

It is known how people reclined to eat in those days.  They did so on couches. Literally lying down.  It was called the roman "triclinium" how roman citizens reclined while eating.  Only luxurious style eating for citizens, not the peons that served them their meals.
It is fact that chazal refer to this when they tell us to recline like kings at the seder table and it is also fact that almost NO ONE does this today, and the whole leaning on a side elbow while chomping matzah and sitting in a chair is not really fulfilling reclining.  And Rabbi Bar Hayim when he speaks of this brings sources from tosfos and others who note that they do not recline anymore and don't have that style of eating since people dine in chairs in france for instance.

There are many who are ignorant of these facts but that doesn't make them any less true.

As to getting people to change what they do, there is no reason for there to be a "movement" based around what people do or don't do (allwithin halacha) at their seder table!  Knowledge is power, and knowing the reality of Jewish law enables a Jew like me to run his seder as he sees fit, to be in line with what chazal prescribe.  In fact, I know a guy that knows a guy, who because of these facts, sets up couches and does true reclining at his seder!  To that I would say its unnecessary because the whole point is to eat in a luxurious way and that style is not common and not culturally associated with luxury, but God bless him, its definitely more correct reclining than when we lean our elbow over.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

He is saying he wants to attack Rav Bar-Haim to get back at him apparently for being offended by something he said, but doesn't know what to say yett soo...

Tag! Come on!